The pamphlet by the avowed
German opportunist, Wilhelm Kolb, entitled Social-Democracy at the
Cross-Roads (Karlsruhe, 1915), appeared opportunely after the
publication of Plekhanov’s symposium, War. The Kautskyist Rudolf
Hilferding wrote a very feeble reply to Kolb in the Neue Zeit, in
which he evaded the main issues and sniveled over Kolb’s correct
assertion that the unity of the German Social-Democrats was
“purely formal.”

Whoever wishes to ponder seriously over the significance of the
collapse of the Second International would do well to compare
Kolb’s ideological position with Plekhanov’s. Like Kautsky, both
agree on the fundamental issue: both reject and ridicule the
idea of revolutionary action in connection with the present war;
both accuse the revolutionary Social-Democrats of “defeatism,”
using the favourite expression of the Plekhanovists. Plekhanov,
who describes the idea of a revolution in connection with the
present war as a “dream-farce,” rails against “revolutionary
phraseology.” Kolb at every step curses “revolutionary phrases,”
the “revolutionary fantasies,” the “little radicals”
(“Radikalinski”) the “hystericals,” “sectarianism,” etc. Kolb
and Plekhanov agree on the main issue: both are opposed to
revolution. The fact that Kolb is generally opposed
to revolution, whereas Plekhanov and Kautsky are “generally in
favour,” is only a difference in shade, in words: in reality,
Plekhanov and Kautsky are Kolb’s satellites.

Kolb is more honest, not in a personal, but in a political
sense, that is, being consistent in his position, he is not a
hypocrite. Hence, he is not afraid to admit the truth that, from
his point of view, the entire International had been imbued
with
“the spirit of revolutionary fantasy,” that it had uttered
“threats” (threats of revolution Messrs. Plekhanov and Kolb!)
in connection with the war. Kolb is right when he says that it
is ridiculous to “repudiate” capitalist society “in principle”
after the Social-Democratic Parties of Europe had risen in its
defence at the very moment when the capitalist state was
cracking from top to bottom, when “its very existence was in
question.” This admission of the objective revolutionary
situation is the truth.

“The consequence” (of the tactics of Liebknecht’s followers),
writes Kolb, “would be that the internal struggle within the
German nation would reach boiling point and this would weaken
its military and political power” ... to the advantage and victory
“of the imperialism of the Triple Entente”!!

Here you have the crux of the opportunist railing against
“defeatism.” This is really the crux of the whole
question. “Internal struggle which has reached boiling point” is
civil war. Kolb is right when he says that the tactics of the
Left lead to this; he is right when he says that they mean the
“military weakening” of Germany, i.e., desiring and aiding its
defeat, defeatism. Kolb is wrong only—only!—in that he
refuses to see the international character of these tactics of
the Left. For “the internal struggle to reach boiling point,”
the “weakening of the military power” of the imperialist
bourgeoisie and (by virtue of this, in connection with it, by
means of it) the transformation of the imperialist war into
civil war are possible in all the belligerent countries. This is
the crux of the whole question. We thank Kolb for his good
wishes, admissions and illustrations; since all this comes from
an exceedingly consistent, honest and avowed enemy of the
revolution; it is particularly valuable as a means of exposing
to the workers the hideous hypocrisy and the shameful
spinelessness of the Plekhanovs and Kautskys.